Teodulo F. Enriquez v Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
A.C. No. 5686. June 16, 2015.
FACTS:
In this case it was about filling of petitioner against Atty.
Lavadia a disbarment for the grounds of gross negligence and
inefficiency in the performance duties as a lawyer before the
office of the Bar Confident (OCB)
The petitioner Teodulo Enriquez was the defendant in a
complaint filed by Ernesto Ounano, Sr. for forcibleentry
before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Talibon, Bohol. To
defend his interest, Enriquez engaged the services of the law
office of Atty. Joselito M. Alo ,R.L.C. Agapay, and Atty.
Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr.with Atty. Lavadia as the assigned
attorney. The Respondent is Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. On
March 18, 2000, in open court, Atty. Lavadia agreed to submit
their position papers and affidavits within 30 days from the
receipt of the pre-trial order after which, the case would be
submitted for decision. However, Atty. Lavadia failed to file
the position paper resulting in the defendants being declared
in default. The MCTC rendered a decision in favor of the
plaintiffs. Atty. Lavadia filed a notice of appeal with sufficient
bond but was dismissed based on Section 7(b), Rule40 of the
Rules of Court. The RTC stated that Atty. Lavadia failed to file
the appeal memorandum after more than 71 days. He moved
for reconsideration but the same was denied by the RTC in its
order pointing out that it had granted four motions for
extension and still no appeal memorandum was filed. Hence
this disbarment complaint was received by OBC. Enriquez
alleged that in failing to file the necessary pleadings before
the court, Atty. Lavadia caused them great damage and
prejudice. This constituted gross negligence and inefficiency
in the performance of his professional duties as a lawyer.
Enriquez thus prayed that Atty. Lavadia be disbarred. The
Court required Atty. Lavadia to submit his comment but he
failed to do so, He filed two motion for extension citing his
heavy case load and family problems said motion gave Atty.
Lavida another 10 days with to file his comment but still he
failed. So he filed again a motion to extend to file his
comment due to his wife’s continued illness.
The Court granted another 30-day period, stating that it
would be the last extension it would grant. But still Atty.
Lavadia NEVER SUBMITTED HIS COMMENT. The Court then
asked him to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt and to submit his comment with 10 days from
notice, Still, Atty. Lavadia failed to comply. The Court thus
imposed on him a ₱1,000.00 fine or imprisonment of five
days if he failed to pay the fine and ordered him to comply
with its previous resolutions. Atty. Lavadia paid the fine and
asked for additional time to file his comment this time stating
that he had moved from Tagbilaran to Cebu because of his
wife’s illness which was caused by "dark-beings." He claimed
that a series of unfortunate events plagued them,i.e., their
house was razed by a fire, the hard drive of his computer
crashing, and his family members falling ill due to a "dark
being." The Court thus granted a 30-day extension but still he
DID NOT SUBMIT ANYTHING. The Court in its Resolution
imposed a fine of ₱2,000.00 and referred the case to the
report and recommendation.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) scheduled a
mandatory conference, but both parties failed to appear. The
IBP CBD recommended that Atty. Lavadia be disbarred and
his name be withdrawn from the Roll of Attorneys. The IBP-
CBD found that not only did Atty. Lavadia cause material
prejudice to his clients by neglecting his duties as counsel in
failing to file the necessary pleadings to defend his client’s
interest, he also displayed a willful and defiant attitude by
repeatedly defying the resolutions of the court.
Issue: WON Atty. Lavadia should be disbarred?
Held: YES
The present complaint was filed January 2002. We granted
Atty. Lavadia every opportunity to file his comment to the
complaint. We issued no less than eight resolutions ordering
Atty. Lavadia to comment: two of which ordered him to pay
fines of P1,000.00 and P2,000.00 and requiring him to show
cause for his failure to file and to comply with the Court's
resolutions. In fine, we have granted him a total of 155 days
extension to file his comment, in response to his repeated
pleas contained in his numerous ex parte motions. After a
lapse of eight years, this Court referred the case to the IBP
where Atty. Lavadia once again filed a motion for extension
to file his position paper but nevertheless failed to file the
same.
While this Court is not unsympathetic to the plight of Atty.
Lavadia, we cannot countenance his act of repeatedly
pleading for extensions of time and yet not submitting
anything to the Court. This reflects his willful disregard for
Court orders putting in question his suitability to discharge
his duties and functions as a lawyer.
Being a lawyer is a privilege with attached duties and
obligations. A lawyer is expected to live by the lawyer’s oath,
the rules of the profession and the code of Professional
responsibility. A LAWYER WHO TRANSGRESS ANY OF HIS
DUTIES IS ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE AND SUBJECT TO THE
COURT’S DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. is
hereby DISBARRED for violating Canons 11 and 18 and Rules
10.03, 12.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from
the Roll of Attorneys.
NOTES:
A lawyer is expected to serve his client with competence
and diligence. Lawyers are reminded to note Rules 12.03
and 18.03 of the CPR: “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
there with shall render him liable.”
A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015
ALVIN S. FELICIANO, Complainant v. ATTY. CARMELITA
BAUTISTA-LOZADA, Respondents
FACTS:
Alvin Feliciano filed an injunction and TRO against Atty.
Carmencita Bautista – Lozada in representing his husband
Edilberto Lozada in the latter’s case against the complainant
on June 5, 2007. Feliciano alleged that Atty. Bautista–Lozada
appeared as a counsel for his husband and actively
participated in the court proceedings while she is still
suspended from the practice of law in reference to a court
judgment on December 15,2005. Feliciano argued that the
act of the respondent constitutes willful disobedience to a
court order. In her reply, Atty Bautista– Lozada claims that
she was only forced by the situation that she needed to
defend the right of his husband who is embroiled in a legal
dispute. She believes that since she is representing his
husband and not a client, it is not within the prohibition of
the law. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation
and the IBP Investigating Officer recommended disbarment
for Atty. Bautista–Lozada in violation of Rule 1.01, 1.02 and
Rule 18.01 of the CPR.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Atty. Bautista–Lozada
warrant disciplinary action?
HELD: Yes.
Atty. Bautista– Lozada’s act of representing his husband in
court proceedings while still serving her suspension is an act p
rohibited by law that should warrant disciplinary action. Sec
27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court clearly stated that
a willful disobedience of any lawful order of the superior
court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for
a party to a case without authority to do so is aground for
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. The
practice of law is defined as any activity, in or out of the
court, which requires that application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. In
the case at bar, Atty. Bautista-Lozada in appearing, signing for
and in behalf of his husband in pleadings and court
proceedings constitutes practice of law where she should
desist herself from engaging during
the period of her suspension. The prior judgement of her sus
pension was promulgated onDecember 15, 2005, therefore
she cannot engage in the practice of law until December
2007.
Flordeliza A.Madria v. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera,
AC No. 11256, March 7, 2017
Facts:
On November 2002, Flordeliza A. Madria consulted Atty.
Rivera in his law office in tuguegarao city to inquire about the
process of annulling her marriage. After giving the details and
other facts relevant to the annulment the respondent told
her that she had a strong case and that he could obtain for
her the decree of annulment. Rivera told her too that his legal
services would cost 25,000 pesos and that she needs to
return on November 19, 2002. On the consultation, she was
accompanied by her daughter and nephew.
On November 19, atty. rivera showed her the petition for
annulment, she then paid an initial amount of 4,000 pesos.
The respondent then advised her to just wait for the
resolution of her complaint, and assured her that she did not
need to appear in court. On December 28, 2002, Madria
completed her payment to the respondent, On April 2003,
the respondent informed the complainant that her petition
had been already granted.
The respondent advised the complainant to allow five months
to lapse after the release of the decision before she could
safely claim the status of single. After five months she then
declared in her voters registration record that she was single.
On September 26, 2003, she then received a copy of the
certificate of finality. Believing that the documents were
authentic, she then used it in applying for the renewal of her
passport.
She then became the object of an investigation by the NBI
because her former partner had filed a complaint charging
her for fabricating the decision for the annulment of her
marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and the
certificate of finality given by the respondent did not exist in
the court records. The complainant then faced criminal
charges for violation of the philippine passport Act. She then
claims that she had relied in good faith on the
representations of the respondent and that Rivera had taken
advantage of his position to convince her to part with her
money and to rely on the falsified court documents.
The respondent denies the allegations of the complainant.
Integration Bar of the Philippines after conducting an
investigation then conclude that atty. Rivera had violated his
lawyers oath and recommend his suspension from the
practice of law for a period of two years. The IBP board of
governors, modified the recommendation of his suspension
to disbarment
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Rivera should be disbarred
Ruling:
Yes. The court states that respondents acts were legally
intolerable and his deliberate falsification of the court
decision and the certificate of finality of the decision reflected
a high degree of moral turpitude and that his acts made a
mockery of the administration of justice in this country. He
thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the
bar. And being a lawyer, he was aware of and bound by the
ethical canons of the code of professional responsibility.
PILAR IBANA-ANDRADE v. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, AC. No.
8313, 2015-07-14
Facts:
This is an administrative case filed against Atty. Eva Paita-
Moya by Pilar Ibana-Andrade and Clare Sinforosa Andrade-
Casilihan.
complainant Pilar Andrade, stockholder and Treasurer of
Mabini College Inc. filed Civil Case... when she was... illegally
suspended by Luz Ibana-Garcia, Marcel Lukban and
respondent Atty. Eva Paita-Moya appeared as counsel for all
respondents.
Complainant Clare Sinforosa I. Andrade-Casilihan likewise
filed an illegal dismissal case against Mabini College Inc.
respondent stood as counsel for Mabini College, Inc. and co-
respondent Luz I.
Garcia and Marcel Lukban.
In another illegal dismissal case filed by Alven Bernardo I.
Andrade respondent acted as counsel for Mabini College, Inc.
Luz I. Garcia and Marcel Lukban.
After the aforementioned cases were filed, complainants
had found out that the Supreme Court promulgated a
resolution in the case entitled Wilson Cham versus Atty. Eva
Paita-Moya suspending respondent from the practice of law
for one month. Despite of the subject June 27, 2009
Resolution on July 15, 2008 and despite knowledge of her
suspension from the practice of law respondent continued to
practice law in willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's
suspension order in A.C. No. 7494.
Respondent filed the following papers and pleadings as
counsel
Likewise and notwithstanding such suspension, respondent
continued to practice law and respondent clients in other
cases before the four branches of the Regional Trial Court
Issues:
whether or not the respondent engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law
Ruling:
The Report and Recommendation recommended that
Respondent be found liable. We adopt the same, with
modification.
The suspension order was received by Respondent on July 15,
2008. Despite this, she continued to practice law in various
cases, as shown by the pleadings she filed and the
certifications noted by the Report. In fact, she continued
receiving various fees for her services throughout the
duration of her suspension. Her sole defense is ignorance of
the resolution that suspended her.
In Molina v. Atty. Magat, this court suspended further Atty.
Ceferino R. Magat from the practice of law for six months for
practicing his profession despite this court's previous order of
suspension.
We impose the same penalty on Atty. Baliga for holding his
position as Regional Director despite lack of authority to
practice law
Wherefore, premises considered, Atty. Eva Paita-Moya is
found guilty of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, and is hereby suspended from the practice of law for
an additional period of six months from her one month
suspension, totaling seven months from service of this
resolution, with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
January 23, 2018
A.C. No. 5473
GENE M. DOMINGO, Complainant
vs.
ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent
Facts: The complainant is an American citizen of Filipino
descent. During a visit to the Philippines in 2000, he sought
the services of a lawyer to handle the cases to be filed against
his cousin Melchor Arruiza and to work on the settlement of
the estate of his late mother Judith Arruiza. In April 2000,
petitioner met respondent, a lawyer recommended by a
friend. Petitioner informed respondent about his need for the
services of a lawyer for the rescission of Melchor Arruiza's
adoption and for the settlement of his mother's estate.
The complainant alleged that the respondent represented to
him that he would take on the cases in behalf of the law firm
of Agabin Verzola Hermoso Layaoen & De Castro, where he
worked as an associate. He assured petitioner that the law
firm was able and willing to act as his legal counsel in the
cases he intended to institute against his adopted brother,
and to undertake the transfer of his mother's properties to
his and his children's names. Trusting the representations of
respondent, the complainant agreed to engage respondent
and his law firm, and paid the initial amount of ₱80,000.00.
Being based in the United States of America, the complainant
maintained constant communication with respondent often
through e-mail and sometimes by telephone to get updates
on the cases. The respondent made several
misrepresentations, as follows:
 he had already filed the annulment of adoption.
 he was processing the transfer of titles of the
properties in the names of complainant and his
children.
 he was processing the cancellation of the claim of
Melchor in the properties.
  he was processing the payment of the taxes and
other fees for the properties to be transferred.
 he was negotiating with the BIR to reduce the tax.
 that the new titles were ready. T
 hat Melchor opposed the cancellation of adoption;
 he boasted that he knew many big-time politicians in
Abra who could help in the case
 that the judge in the case would rule in favor of the
complainant if he would give the judge 10% of the
value of the property.
 that they would need ₱200,000 for the judge but he
needed an additional ₱50,000 for the “boys” in the
CA and the SC
 that the judge had already written the decision but,
for his protection, insisted on a kaliwaan of the copy
of the decision and the payment. That the decision
was appealed in the CA and eventually in the SC,
 and that the respondent would be working doubly
hard to influence a favorable outcome
 that in total, all the expenses would amount to
₱433,002.61 (legal fees, payment to the judge, BIR,
other agencies). The complainant gave the
respondent the amount and later on asked for the
delivery of the decisions. However, the respondent
refused to deliver any of the documents. Eventually,
the respondent cut off communications with the
complainant.
 the complainant contacted the law firm of the
respondent and he found out that the law firm never
took on any of the cases of the complainant. The
decree for annulment of adoption was never
instituted and the settlement of the estate never
took place
Issue: Whether or not the respondent deserves disciplinary
action
Ruling: Yes, the respondent found guilty of violating the Code
of Professional Responsibility with respect to negligence in
the performance of his duties towards his client, and
recommended the penalty of reprimand with a stem warning
that a repetition of the offense would warrant a more severe
penalty. It ruled that the proceeding before it was basically a
disciplinary proceeding; that it could only decide on the
fitness of respondent to continue in the practice of law; that
it could not go beyond the sanctions that could be imposed
under the Rules of Court; that it had the power to require the
restitution of the client's money as part of the penalty; that it
could only order the restitution of whatever amount that was
given by petitioner to respondent but not other monetary
claims of petitioner like travel and plane fare and litigation
expenses, which were properly within the jurisdiction of
other authorities; and that, accordingly, it ordered
respondent to immediately deliver to petitioner the amount
of ₱513,000.00, plus interest computed at the legal rate.
December 10, 2014
A.C. No. 10579
ERLINDA FOSTER, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG, Respondent.
Facts: Complainant was referred to respondent in connection
with her legal problem regarding a deed of absolute sale she
entered into with Tierra Realty, which respondent had
notarized. After their discussion, complainant agreed to
engage his legal services for the filing of the appropriate case
in court, for which they signed a contract. Complainant paid
respondent ₱20,000.00 as acceptance fee and ₱5,000.00 for
incidental expenses.
On September 28, 2009, respondent wrote a letter to
Tropical Villas Subdivision in relation to the legal problem
referred by complainant. He then visited the latter in her
home and asked for a loan of ₱100,000.00, payable in sixty
(60) days, for the repair of his car. Complainant, having trust
and confidence on respondent being her lawyer, agreed to
lend the amount without interest. A promissory
note evidenced the loan.
Complainant became aware that Tierra Realty was
attempting to transfer to its name a lot she had previously
purchased. She referred the matter to respondent who
recommended the immediate filing of a case for reformation
of contract with damages. Respondent requested and
thereafter received from complainant the amount of
₱150,000.00, as filing fee.
On February 2, 2011, complainant decided to terminate the
services of respondent as her counsel and wrote him a letter
of termination, after her friend gave her copies of documents
showing that respondent had been acquainted with Tierra
Realty since December 2007. Subsequently, complainant
wrote to respondent, requesting him to pay her the amounts
he received from her less the contract fee and the actual cost
of the filing fees. Respondent never replied.
Respondent alleged that he was 72 years old and had been
engaged in the practice of law since March 1972, and was
President of the IBP Ilocos Norte Chapter from 1998 to 1999.
Respondent saw nothing wrong in this situation since
complainant was fully aware that another counsel was
assisting him in the handling of cases. Having been fully
informed of the nature of her cause of action and the
consequences of the suit, complainant was aware of the
applicable law on reformation of contracts. Finally, by way of
counterclaim, respondent demanded just compensation for
the services he had rendered in other cases for the
complainant.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent violates the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Ruling: Yes, the Court sustains the findings and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with
respect to respondent’s violation of Rules 1 and 16 of the
CPR. The Court, however, modifies the conclusion on his
alleged violation of Rule 15, on representing conflicting
interests. The Court also differs on the penalty.
Respondent is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful
conduct, both in his professional and private capacity. As a
lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into believing that the
filing fees for her case were worth more than the prescribed
amount in the rules, due to feigned reasons such as the high
value of the land involved and the extra expenses to be
incurred by court employees. In other words, he resorted to
overpricing, an act customarily related to depravity and
dishonesty.
It is clear that respondent failed to fulfill this duty.
Bernardino v Rey Santos
AC No. 10853, Feb 18, 2018
*blue font other issue and ruling (if you want to recite both
issues)
Facts:
In A.C. No. 10583, complainant Roberto C. Bernardino
(Bernardino) filed a Letter-Complaint4 against Atty. Victor
Rey Santos (Atty. Santos) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, praying that Atty. Santos be investigated and
subjected to disciplinary action.5
Bernardino alleged that the death certificate of his aunt,
Rufina de Castro Turla, was falsified by Atty. Santos. Atty.
Santos made it appear that Rufina Turla died in 1992, when in
fact, she died in 1990.6
Atty. Santos used the falsified death certificate to -support
the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication7 executed by Mariano Turla,
husband of Rufina Turla.8 Paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication prepared by Atty. Santos states:
Being her surviving spouse, I am. the sole legal heir entitled to
succeed to and inherit the estate of said deceased who did
not leave any descendant or any other heir entitled to her
estate.9 (Emphasis in the original underscoring supplied)
Years later, Atty. Santos, on behalf of Marilu Turla, daughter
of Rufina and Mariano Turla,10 filed a Complaint11 for sum of
money with prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
temporary restraining order against Bernardino, docketed as
Civil Case No. 09-269.12
The Complaint in Civil Case No. 09-269 alleged that Marilu
Turla is an heir of Mariano Turla,13 which allegedly
contradicts the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos
drafted.14 Hence, Atty. Santos represented clients with
conflicting interests.
Issues:
Whether respondent Atty. Santos violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Held:
Yes. He violated .Rule 10 and 10.01:
CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith
to the court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be mislead by any artifice.
As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the
rule of law. In doing so, lawyers are expected to be honest in
all their dealings.67 Unfortunately, respondent was far from
being honest. With full knowledge that Rufina Turla had
another heir, he acceded to Mariano Turla’s request to
prepare the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.68.
We find respondent Atty. Victor Rey Santos guilty of violating
10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1)
year.
CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.
The rule on conflict of interest is based on the fiduciary
obligation in a lawyer-client relationship. Lawyers must treat
all information received from their clients with utmost
confidentiality in order to encourage clients to fully inform
their counsels of the facts of their case.59 In Hornilla v. Atty.
Salunat,60 this court explained what conflict of interest
means:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The
test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues
for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also
those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of
the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act
which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represents him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test
of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of
a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing
in the performance thereof.61 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)
Applying the test to determine whether conflict of interest
exists, respondent would necessarily refute Mariano Turla’s
claim that he is Rufina Turla’s sole heir when he agreed to
represent Marilu Turla. Worse, he knew that Mariano Turla
was not the only heir. As stated in the Report of the
Commission on Bar Discipline:
Worse[,] the respondent himself on the witness stand during
his April 14, 2009 testimony in the Civil Case for Sum of
Money with Prayer of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order docketed as Civil Case No. 09-
269 filed with the RTC of Makati City admitted as follows: "I
called the attention of Mr. Mariano Turla[.] I . . . asked him
what about Lulu she is entitled [sic] to a share of properties
and he . . . told me, ‘Ako na ang bahala kay Lulu[,] hindi ko
pababayaan yan.’ So he asked me to proceed with the
Affidavit of Adjudication wherein he claimed the whole [sic]
properties for himself." This very admission proves that the
respondent was privy to Marilu Turla’s standing as a legal and
rightful heir to Rufina Turla’s estate.62 (Citation omitted)
However, Rule 15.03 provides for an exception, specifically,
"by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts."63 Respondent had the duty to inform
Mariano Turla and Marilu Turla that there is a conflict of
interest and to obtain their written consent.
Mariano Turla died on February 5, 2009,64 while respondent
represented Marilu Turla in March 2009.65 It is
understandable why respondent was unable to obtain
Mariano Turla’s consent. Still, respondent did not present
evidence showing that he disclosed to Marilu Turla that he
previously represented Mariano Turla and assisted him in
executing the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. Thus, the
allegation of conflict of interest against respondent was
sufficiently proven.
we find respondent Atty. Victor Rey Santos guilty of violating
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. The findings of fact and
recommendations of the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated May 10, 2013 and
March 22, 2014 are ACCEPTED and ADOPTED with the
MODIFICATION that the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) year is imposed upon Atty. Victor
Rey Santos. He is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
ALEX ONG vs. ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO [Adm. Case No. 2417.
February 6, 2002]
FACTS:
The complainant received a demand-letter from the
respondent as legal counsel of one Nemesia Garganian
claiming for the support of the alleged child of the
complainant with the latter. A few days thereafter, the
respondent wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Jose Bueno
(Agaw), an emissary of the complainant. In this letter, the
respondent listed down the alleged additional financial
demands of Ms. Garganian against the complainant and
discussed the courses of action that he would take against
the complainant should the latter fail to comply with his
obligation to support Ms. Garganian and her son.
It was alleged that the real father of Ms. Garganian’s son was
the complainant’s brother and that the complainant merely
assumed his brother’s obligation to appease Ms. Garganian
who was threatening to sue them. The complainant then did
not comply with the demands against him.
Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint with the
Office of the City Fiscal (now Prosecutor’s Office) of
Dumaguete City against the complainant, his wife, Bella Lim,
and one Albina Ong, for alleged violation of the Retail Trade
Nationalization Law and the Anti-Dummy Law.
The next day, the respondent filed another criminal
complaint against the complainant, Lim, Ong and Adela
Peralta for their alleged violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
In addition, the respondent commenced administrative cases
against the complainant before the Bureau of Domestic
Trade, the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, and
the Office of the Solicitor General. According to the
complainant, these cases were subsequently denied due
course and dismissed by the aforesaid government agencies.
The foregoing prompted the complainant to file the present
case for disbarment. The records show that the respondent
offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him
any information against the complainant just so he would
have a leverage in his actions against the latter. The
complainant branded the respondent’s tactics as “highly
immoral, unprofessional and unethical,
constituting…malpractice of law and conduct gravely
unbecoming of a lawyer.”
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice of
law and conduct unbecoming of lawyer.
HELD: YES.
The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It mandates lawyers to represent
their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule
19.01 further commands that “a lawyer shall employ only fair
and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client
and shall not present, participate or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding.”
We find the respondent’s action to be malicious as the cases
he instituted against the complainant did not have any
bearing or connection to the cause of his client, Ms.
Garganian. Clearly, the respondent has violated the
proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01. His behavior is
inexcusable. His tactic is unethical and runs counter to the
rules that a lawyer shall not, for corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding and he shall not do any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act
with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and
nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be
disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity. Public confidence in law and
lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should
act and comport himself in such a manner that would
promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO is
hereby declared guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of five
(5) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same
or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
PO1 JOSE B. CASPE, Complainant,
v.
ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, Respondent
FACTS: Caspe alleged the controversy started when Atty.
Mejica disregarded conflict of interest rules. Caspe said that
when he filed a complaint for attempted murder against
Antonio Rodriguez, Jr., Atty. Mejica served as Caspe’s
counsel. When Rodriguez, Jr. filed his counter-affidavit, it was
Atty. Mejica who counseled and represented him. Caspe
brought separate suits for damages and disbarment: one for
conflict of interest and the present complaint. Atty. Mejica
tried to negotiate a settlement but Caspe refused. Atty. Mejica
allegedly then threatened Caspe that “he will help file cases
after cases against the complainant until he kneels before
[him]. He will ‘put down’ complainant so much so that he will
be removed from the service.”From then on, Caspe alleged,
Atty. Mejica maliciously encouraged the filing of suits against
him.
In the present complaint, Caspe narrated that on December
21, 2007, Romulo Gaduena,10 a barangay tanod, harassed Jan
Mark Busa and Marcelino Jataas with a gun. Caspe, who was
on duty, together with PO1 Onofre Lopeña responded. They
recovered a caliber 357 revolver which was turned over to the
Can-avid Police station. The incident was recorded in the
police blotter. Gaduena evaded arrest with the help of
barangay captain Prudencio Agda and other
barangay tanods11 who allegedly clobbered Caspe and took his
gun. In the interest of peace and harmony, the Chief of
Police12 called and requested that Caspe desist from filing
charges against the barangay captain and tanods, specifically
Gaduena. Caspe acceded.
However, Gaduena, with Atty. Mejica as counsel, filed a
complaint13 for serious slander by deed against Caspe, which
was supported by a joint affidavit14 of two barangay tanods. It
was alleged that Caspe kicked, collared and slapped Gaduena’s
face. This prompted Caspe to disregard the agreement with
the Chief of Police and he filed cases against
the tanods. Suspecting that Atty. Mejica encouraged Gaduena
to file the case against him, Caspe filed the cases for
damages15 and disbarment16 against Atty. Mejica before the
IBP.
In its July 4, 2008 Order,17 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP CBD) ordered Atty. Mejica to submit his answer.
A Notice of Mandatory Conference was issued on September
22, 2008 for a hearing scheduled on October 21, 2008.18 Atty.
Mejica, however, failed to appear. The hearing was
rescheduled on November 18, 2008.
On November 13, 2008, Atty. Mejica filed a manifestation that
he never received a copy of the complaints against him. He
asked that the hearing be postponed and rescheduled and that
copies of the complaint be furnished to him.19 The hearing was
thus rescheduled to January 13, 200920 and a copy of the
complaint was sent to him via a private courier, LBC. It
appeared however that he did not claim the mail.21cralawred
On December 9, 2008, Atty. Mejica once more manifested that
he did not receive any notice from LBC of any mail to be
claimed. He also expressed misgivings on the shift from
registered mail to the use of a private courier to send copies of
the complaint. He requested that a copy of the complaint be
sent to him via registered mail. Atty. Mejica failed to appear in
the January 13, 2009 hearing. The IBP CBD issued an order
warning him that his failure to appear in the next rescheduled
hearing would render him in default and the case would be
submitted for decision
Atty. Mejica failed to appear for the February 3, 2009
hearing. The IBP CBD ordered the case submitted for decision.
In its Report and Recommendation,25 the IBP CBD found
respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 of the
CPR. It stated that Atty. Mejica was corruptly motivated in
encouraging the filing of suits against Caspe making good his
threat to file case upon case against the latter until he kneels
before him. Notice was taken that this was Atty. Mejica’s
second infraction for a similar offense. In Baldado v.
Mejica,26 he was suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three months.27 The IBP CBD thus recommended
that Atty. Mejica be suspended from the practice of law for
one year.28cralawred
In its April 15, 2013 Resolution, the IBP BOG adopted the
Report and Recommendation of the IBP CBD.29Atty. Mejica
moved for reconsideration. In its May 3, 2014 Resolution, the
IBP BOG denied the motion for reconsideration and modified
the penalty by increasing the period of suspension to three
years.31 The resolution noted that Atty. Opinion, member of
the BOG and counsel of Caspe for this case, stepped out of the
room when the case came for discussion and did not
participate in the voting.32cralawred
Atty. Mejica maintains that he was not afforded due
process. He stated that he received a Notice of Preliminary
Conference for October 21, 2008 but did not appear since he
did not receive a copy of the complaint and was not ordered
to answer. For the scheduled February 3, 2009 Conference,
Atty. Mejica reasoned that it was impossible for him to attend
the meeting since he received the Notice in the afternoon of
February 3, 2009.33 Furthermore, he was not given the
opportunity to answer. Atty. Mejica also maintained that he
never threatened Caspe because he was not present during
the preliminary conference where he allegedly uttered the
threatening words.34cralawred
We adopt the findings of the IBP but modify the penalty
imposed.
The only question the Court takes up in disbarment
proceedings is whether the member of the bar is fit to be
allowed the privileges as such or not.35 This Court has stated
that a lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity,
which shows him to be wanting in good moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor as to render him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. In disciplinary
proceedings against members of the bar, only clear
preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability. As
long as the evidence presented by complainant or that taken
judicial notice of by the Court is more convincing and worthy
of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto, the
imposition of disciplinary sanction is justified.37 The Court has
required that a complainant has the onus of proving the
charges against respondent by clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence.38cralawred
Based on the Report and Recommendation, the Court is
convinced that there is sufficient evidence to sanction Atty.
Mejica. The following observation by the IBP CBD is well taken
The IBP CBD concluded that there could be no other reason for
Atty. Mejica to file the cases against PO1 Caspe other than to
get back at him. We agree that the confluence of
circumstances points to Atty. Mejica’s corrupt motive in
helping Gaduena in filing cases against Caspe, in violation of
Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 of the CPR.
With respect to Atty. Mejica’s claim that he was not afforded
due process, i.e., he was not able to receive a copy of a
complaint which in turn was the reason for him not to have
attended the mandatory conference, we find this untenable.
Section 5, Rule V of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission
on Bar Discipline Integrated Bar of the Philippines provides
that:
SEC. 5. Non-appearance of Parties, and Non-verification of
Pleadings. a) Non-appearance at the mandatory conference or
at the clarificatory questioning date shall be deemed a waiver
of right to participate in the proceeding. Ex parte conference
or hearings shall then be conducted. Pleadings submitted or
filed which are not verified shall not be given weight by the
Investigating Commissioner.
Atty. Mejica during the course of these proceedings has missed
all four scheduled hearings supposedly since he was not
furnished any copy of the complaint. Records suggest
however that a copy of the complaint was sent to him on
August 25, 2008, a mail which he did not claim. He submitted
two manifestations in response to notices he received. He was
thus placed on notice that there was an action against him.
We thus hold that Atty. Mejica further violated Canon 11 45 of
the CPR which calls for a lawyer to observe and give due
respect to courts and judicial officers.
Given that this is Atty. Mejica’s second infraction, we thus rule
it appropriate under the circumstances to impose a two-year
suspension from the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Aquilino A.
Mejica GUILTY of violation of Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 and
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty.
Aquilino A. Mejica from the practice of law for TWO (2)
YEARS effective upon finality of this Resolution, with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the
Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal record
as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
Noble vs Alies
Ac No. 10679 July 1, 2015
Facts: Maximino alleged that on August 18, 2010, Orlando, a
lawyer, filed a complaint[2] for damages against his own
brother, Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr. (Marcelo), whom Maximino
represented, together with other defendants, therein. In the
said complaint, Orlando stated... the following data: "IBP-
774058-12/07/09-QC x x x MCLE Compliance No. II-
0008689[3]/Issued on March 10, 2008."[4] Maximino claimed
that at the time of the filing of the said complaint, Orlando's
IBP O.R. number should have... already reflected payment of
his IBP annual dues for the year 2010, not 2009, and that he
should have finished his third Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) Compliance, not just the second.
Sometime in December 2011, Maximino learned from Marcelo
that the latter had filed a separate case for grave threats and
estafa[5] against Orlando. When Maximino was furnished a
copy of the complaint, he discovered that, through text
messages,... Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading
Marcelo from retaining his services as counsel, claiming that
he was incompetent and that he charged exorbitant fees,
saying, among others: "x x x Better dismiss [your] hi-track
lawyer who will impoverish [you] with his... unconscionable
[professional] fee. Max Noble, as shown in court records,
never appeared even once, that's why you lost in the pre-trial
stage, x x x get rid of [Noble] as [your] lawyer. He is out to
squeeze a lot of money from [you], x x x daig mo nga mismong
abogado mong... polpol.
Records show that Orlando even prepared a Notice to
Terminate Services of Counsel[7] in the complaint for
damages, which stated that Maximino "x x x has never done
anything to protect the interests of the defendants in... a
manner not befitting his representation as a seasoned law
practitioner and, aside from charging enormous amount of
professional fees and questionable expenses, said counsel's
contracted services reached as far only in preparing and filing
uncalled for motions to dismiss x x x"... as well as a
Compromise Agreement,[8] both of which he sent to Marcelo
for his signature. Affronted, Maximino filed the instant
complaint charging Orlando with violation of Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
(CPR), Bar Matter (BM) Nos. 850[9] and 1922[10], and prayed
for the disbarment of respondent as well as the award of
damages.
IBP Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation[15] dated April 30, 2013, the
IBP Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case
against Orlando, finding that a transgression of the MCLE
compliance requirement is not a ground for disbarment as in
fact, failure to... disclose the required information would
merely cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of
the pleadings from the records. Neither did the IBP
Commissioner find any violation of the CPR so gross or grave
as to warrant any administrative liability on the part of
Orlando, considering that the communication between
Orlando and Marcelo, who are brothers, was done privately
and not directly addressed to Maximino nor intended to be
published and known by third person
Issues: Whether or not the IBP correctly dismissed the
complaint against Orlando
Ruling: The petition is partly meritorious.
In this relation, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as Canon 8 of the
CPR provides:
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach
upon the professional employment of another lawyer;
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to
give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief
against unfaithful or neglectful... counsel.
Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it
should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity
of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and
unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial
forum.[23] In Buatis Jr. v. People,[24] the Court treated a
lawyer's use of the words "lousy," "inutile," "carabao English,"
"stupidity," and "satan" in a letter addressed to another
colleague as defamatory and injurious which effectively...
maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting
language to describe the opposing counsel is considered
conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.[
In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent
to his brother Marcelo as casual communications considering
that they were conveyed privately. To the Court's mind,
however, the tenor of the messages cannot be treated lightly.
The text messages were clearly... intended to malign and
annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word "polpol"
(stupid). Likewise, Orlando's insistence that Marcelo
immediately terminate the services of Maximino indicates
Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in violation
of the... above-quoted rules. Moreover, Orlando's voluntary
plea of guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal
case filed against him by Marcelo was, for all intents and
purposes, an admission that he spoke ill, insulted, and
disrespected Maximino - a departure from the... judicial
decorum which exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.
On this score, it must be emphasized that membership in the
bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's
words and actions directly affect the public's opinion of the
legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe such
conduct of nobility and uprightness... which should remain
with them, whether in their public or private lives, and may be
disciplined in the event their conduct falls short of the
standards imposed upon them.[26] Thus, in this case, it is
inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed... to
Orlando's brother in private. As a member of the bar, Orlando
should have been more circumspect in his words, being fully
aware that they pertain to another lawyer to whom fairness as
well as candor is owed. It was highly improper for Orlando to
interfere and insult Maximino... to his client.
Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial
proceedings, as in this case, constitutes unprofessional
conduct which subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.[27]
While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and
courage, such... enthusiasm does not justify the use of
offensive and abusive language.[28] The Court has consistently
reminded the members of the bar to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and
reputation of a party.
Considering the circumstances, it is glaringly clear how
Orlando transgressed the CPR when he maligned Maximino to
his client.[29] With regard to Orlando's alleged violation of BM
No. 1922, the Court agrees with the IBP that his failure to
disclose the required information for MCLE compliance in the
complaint for damages he had filed against his brother
Marcelo is not a ground for disbarment. At most, his...
violation shall only be cause for the dismissal of the complaint
as well as the expunction thereof from the records.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes
GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as the entire
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in dealing with
his professional... colleagues and STERNLY WARNED that a
commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.